Foote Celine, Kotwal Sradha, Gallagher Martin, Cass Alan, Brown Mark, Jardine Meg
The George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Renal Department, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Nephrology (Carlton). 2016 Mar;21(3):241-53. doi: 10.1111/nep.12586.
Elderly people comprise a large and growing proportion of the global dialysis population. Regional differences in rates of dialysis in the elderly suggest multiple factors influence treatment decision-making including beliefs about the relative benefits and harms of dialysis and supportive (non-dialysis) care. We therefore systematically reviewed the literature reporting survival of elderly patients treated with either treatment pathway.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies or randomized controlled trials identified in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published before July 2014. Survival by treatment modality was calculated. Subgroup analyses by study design, study size, patient age and cohort era were conducted.
Eighty-nine studies published between 1976 and 2014 reported on 294 921 elderly end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients. There was a paucity of data for supportive care (724 patients or 0.2% of the total patients) and supportive care studies were susceptible to lead-time bias. One-year survival for elderly patients treated with undifferentiated dialysis was 73.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 66.3-79.7%), 78.4% (95% CI 75.2-81.6) for haemodialysis and 77.9% (95% CI 73.8-81.9) for peritoneal dialysis. Supportive care patients had a 1-year survival of 70.6% (95% CI 63.3-78.0%). Residual heterogeneity remained within individual treatment modalities despite subgroup analyses.
While the available literature demonstrates a broadly similar 1-year survival in elderly ESKD patients, it does not allow a confident estimate of the relative survival benefits of dialysis or supportive care. This uncertainty needs urgent attendance by further prospective data, which avoid bias and allow comparisons of quality of life and survival.
老年人在全球透析人群中所占比例很大且在不断增加。老年人透析率的地区差异表明,多种因素会影响治疗决策,包括对透析相对利弊的看法以及支持性(非透析)护理。因此,我们系统回顾了报告采用这两种治疗途径治疗的老年患者生存率的文献。
对2014年7月之前在MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库中检索到的队列研究或随机对照试验进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。计算不同治疗方式的生存率。按研究设计、研究规模、患者年龄和队列时期进行亚组分析。
1976年至2014年间发表的89项研究报告了294921例老年终末期肾病(ESKD)患者的情况。支持性护理的数据很少(724例患者,占总患者的0.2%),且支持性护理研究易受领先时间偏倚影响。接受未分化透析治疗的老年患者1年生存率为73.0%(95%置信区间(CI)66.3 - 79.7%),血液透析为78.4%(95%CI 75.2 - 81.6),腹膜透析为77.9%(95%CI 73.8 - 81.9)。接受支持性护理的患者1年生存率为70.6%(95%CI 63.3 - 78.0%)。尽管进行了亚组分析,但各治疗方式内部仍存在残余异质性。
虽然现有文献表明老年ESKD患者的1年生存率大致相似,但无法可靠估计透析或支持性护理的相对生存获益。这种不确定性需要通过进一步的前瞻性数据来紧急解决,这些数据应避免偏倚,并能对生活质量和生存率进行比较。